About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid
're running a trillion dollar deficit year single year. if we went back to zero, we're rebalanced. right now with the fourth year in a row, that deficit and debt continues to climb. so it doesn't really wipe it out and the challenge of it is what does that do to the overall economy. we're not just dealing with one tax increase as well. a lot of people lose track of that. the affordable care about actually begin on january 1st as well for people making $200,000 or more. or people having large medical bills. this is talking about an additional tax increase on top of that. >> what about what bill clinton said? he said once things start to get better and that's a crucial point he was making. once the economy starts to get better, taxes have to go up on the middle class. do you agree? is. >> i don't, actually. and the reason being is that right now, if you look at the real math, in 2007 and 012, we have the same amount of revenue. now, 2008 and 2009, we had a dramatic drop in federal revenues, but we've slowly climbed back up. revenue has gone up every year of the obama administration and now, we
it's not 17% of our debt because right now we have a trillion dollar deficit every single year. if we went back to zero, that's true. right now with fourth year in a row with over a trillion dollars in deficit spending, that deficit and debt continues it to climb. it doesn't wipe it out. what does it do to the overall economy. we're not just dealing with one tax increase right now. the affordable care act actually begin on january 1st as well for people making $200,000 or more or people with large medical bills. that already starts coming up. this is an additional tax increase on top of that tax increase. >> what about what bill clinton said? he said once things start to get better, and that's a crucial point he was making. he wasn't saying doing it right away. once it gets better, taxes go up on the middle class. do you agree with that? >> i don't, actually. the reason being is that right now if you look at the real math on it, in 2007 and 2012 we have the same amount of revenue. obviously 2008 and '09 we had a dramatic drop in federal revenues coming in. we've slowly climbed back up
not represent the bowles simpson plan, nor is it the bowles plan in my testimony on deficit reduction. i simply took the mid point of the public offers, put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where i thought a deal could be reached at the time. he's very much backing away from speaker boehner's letter. the question i wanted to ask you is some of the details, as you know, it's all in. >> can we spin one more point on that? >> absolutely. >> here's speaker boehner who is taking a mid point on the compromise between the two sides and offered it, and it's already flatley rejected? >> i think he may be rejected, sir, if i may -- >> i'm not talking about simpson -- erskine boelsz. i'm talking about the white house's response to it. >> let's get to that too. i think what erskine bowles is saying in his statement, that this letter from speaker boehner does not represent his theory, number one, but i think the line that the white house is having problems with, and i believe i found it in page two of the speaker's letter, i'll read it to you if i can. he says this, notably, the new revenue in
much deficit reduction. too much spending cuts. when the private sector, when businesses and consumers are not spending, what we need is for government to be the spender of last resort. we don't want to go into major spending cuts. that's the austerity trap that europe has found itself in, and it would be crazy for us to go in that direction. >> before we go, very quickly, yes or no. do we have a deal by the end of the year? >> yes. >> and what about you, doug? >> marginally, yes. 60/40 in favor of a deal but they've got to get moving. >> we'll have to see if it's a real deal or another kick of the can down the road or some other interim thing. thanks for being here. >>> "outfront" next, the u.s. military draws up new plans for a potential strike against syria as we learn more about that country's stockpile of chemical weapons. >>> plus -- the u.s. supreme court agrees to take on the issue of gay marriage. and is that a signal, is that a signal that for republicans, it may be time to reconsider its view on this? >>> and a nurse duped by a prank call leaking information about the duches
before the joint select committee on deficit reduction, i simply took the midpoint of the public offers to demonstrate where i thought a deal could be reached at the time. he's very much backing away from speaking boehner's letter, but the question i wanted the to ask you -- >> can we spend one more point on that? >> of course. >> what did he say? that was the midpoint of a compromise from the two. so, here's speaker boehner who is taking a new point on the compromise between the two sides and offered it and it's already flatly rejected? >> i think what he might be rejecting, sir, if i may -- >> no, i'm not talking abo about erskine bowles. >> i think what he's saying in his statement, this letter from speaker boehner does not represent his theerly, number one, but i think the line the white house is have been problems with, i believe i found it in page two of the speaker's letter, he says this. notably, the new revenue in the bowles plan would not be a i chiefed through higher taxes, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy.
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)